Netflix coming to HTML5 just as soon as the DRM ducks are in a row

HTML5 Netflix will come to Chrome once one more standard is implemented.

Netflix users on Windows and OS X currently depend on Microsoft's Silverlight plugin to watch videos. With Silverlight no longer under active development, the company is looking at alternative delivery systems for its app-free, browser-based video delivery.

The answer it picked is, unsurprisingly, HTML5, but as the company details in a blog post, it's not up to the challenge just yet. The sticking point, again unsurprisingly, is DRM. Netflix's Silverlight player protects the content that it plays, and the company needs to maintain a similar level of protection in its HTML5 successor.

That isn't possible today, but with a trio of features currently being worked on under the remit of W3C, the World Wide Web Consortium, it soon will be.

Two of the features are relatively uncontentious. The <video> element that underpins HTML5-based video playback presently uses a specific URL or URLs as its data source. Netflix, however, performs dynamic management of the source, so that, for example, it can switch to lower bitrate streams if it detects a deterioration in network conditions. The Media Source Extensions (MSE) extends the <video> element to give JavaScript this kind of control.

The Web Cryptography (WebCrypto) API provides a JavaScript API for various standard cryptographic features such as hashing and encryption. This can be used for many things, such as client-side encrypted data storage, client-side generation of signed documents and e-mail message, and client-side secure instant messaging.

The third feature is, however, unwelcome for many. Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) provide an API that allows using encrypted media streams with HTML5's <video> and <audio> tags. EME defines how HTML5 browsers will detect that encrypted streams are being used, and then look up an appropriate Content Decryption Module (CDM) that will verify that the license is being properly respected, and then decrypt the data.

The announcement in February that W3C had deemed EME to be in scope for HTML5's development, and hence something that can be developed under W3C's banner, was not universally welcomed by the Web community. Content owners, and some of those providing services to content owners (both directly, such as Netflix, and indirectly, such as Microsoft and Google, with Internet Explorer and Chrome, respectively) regard EME as either desirable, or at least necessary, if premium video content is to move to HTML5.

For them, the choice is between "Silverlight/Flash/custom apps with DRM" and "HTML5 with DRM." "HTML5 without DRM" simply isn't in the running.

Countering that group are those who say variously that DRM is ineffective, DRM undermines users' rights, and that CDMs allow non-standard, proprietary code to be injected into the browser. In that light, it serves much the same role as plugins anyway, and as such, EME contradicts the goals of the open Web. Most or all CDMs are likely to be proprietary, unmodifiable code, to reduce the chance that they are tampered with.

Currently, the Chrome browser and Chrome OS have preliminary support for MSE and EME. Netflix is using both of these on Chrome OS to provide Netflix video to Chromebook users. It's using a plugin for WebCrypto; once that's included in Chrome, the plugin will be removed. From there, Netflix will begin testing its HTML5 player in Chrome on both Windows and OS X.

About damn time. I watch a lot of Netflix, and besides games, its the only reason I still run Windows. Now I can start using chrome on Linux to watch the way I want.

EDIT: fuck....didn't see the part where it's only Windows and OSX....HELLO Netflix.....Linux.....it's one of the OS's that you need to support...

But if the modules required to use Netflix HTML5 are present in the Linux build of Chrome, getting native Netflix support in Linux would be a factor of 10 easier due to only having to switch user agents (best case). If that fails, a VM of Windows should suffice (I find XP with 512 of RAM and 128 for video seems to do the trick just fine).

I agree strongly with this. I don't believe Hickson is correct here at all. Media companies have a lot of leverage over technology companies by virtue of the fact that tech companies don't wanna piss them off/be sued out of their existence. DRM doesn't do anything with regards to that.

Which they are totally and absolutely wrong about, because DRM does nothing to stop piracy and just penalizes legitimate paying customers.

It is well past time to make ALL DRM illegal and tell companies "Stop treating your customers like criminals! You are free to go after people who sell counterfeit copies of your stuff, but leave the other 'pirates' alone, they are usually doing nothing more than people with VHS recorders did 20 years ago, sharing with friends!"

I can't believe this post got so many up votes. This just shows how f*cked up Ars readers are in general - a bunch of geeks with no respect for other people's property rights. Yet I bet they all be screaming murder if it is their code/work that is being pirated. DRM is not for preventing copying? GMAFB.

Actually, it's copyright holders that have a disrespect for the property of others. Copyright is an affront to the free market, and it directly interferes with the property rights of others. Even worse, anti-circumvention laws mean that I can't legally use the things I own, even in a way that doesn't violate copyright.

Would going to HTML5 with DRM enable Netflix to work in linux without going through a bunch of hoops?

tuco

If a browser that adopts the standard exists, then there would be no issue to play the content.

The browser would need to include the binary plugin that implements the DRM. That can't work in an open source browser, so you will not see this in Firefox or Chromium.

Unless a spec is devised for binary-only CDMs (or just, ugh, reuse NPAPI), in which case it could be done in Firefox or Chromium just fine (unless ideology precluded its implementation).

If nothing else, though, it would allow a company like Netflix to experiment with un-DRMed content--which isn't completely impossible, especially as Netflix is starting to produce its own shows, and hence starting to own some copyrights itself.

This is a bad idea and I really dread the possibility of it coming to fruition. It's one thing for DRM to be embeded in a plugin, external to the browser, but deep in the core of what are supposed to be open standards and functionality? This is an extremely dangerous proposition for the web.

Are we willing to give all that up so we can watch some movies?

Quote:

People can complain about DRM on owned content all they want, but DRM for rental content makes a bit more sense.

DRM never makes sense. If technology has obsoleted a method of use, we should just abandon the use instead of malforming technology to cling to it. A quick look at the history of the way we consume multimedia shows us why DRM is always a bad idea (ie.: all the cool things you can do with CDs vs. you can't do jack-shit with your DVD collection other than watch it in only the terms dictated to you).

Quote:

I agree strongly with this. I don't believe Hickson is correct here at all. Media companies have a lot of leverage over technology companies by virtue of the fact that tech companies don't wanna piss them off/be sued out of their existence. DRM doesn't do anything with regards to that.

I don't get this. Just running some rough numbers, the consumer electronics industry did nearly a trillion dollars in sales worldwide last year. Hollywood? A comparatively piddly $32 billion.

I don't understand why a few of the big players haven't gotten together and said, "fuck this, we're going to make shit that our customers want, not what the Hollywood jackoffs dictate we can make" and hammer them into the ground (or just buy them out, really)

Hell, forget consumer electronics. Google alone could buy out Hollywood several times over.

Or, hey, they could open up their own studios. They certainly have the money.

It's kind of surprising to see Netflix putting out an HTML5 player; IME their Silverlight player is by far the most reliable and highest quality (subjectively) of the popular web players (infinitely superior to the YouTube HTML5 and Flash player, eg).

I can't believe this post got so many up votes. This just shows how f*cked up Ars readers are in general - a bunch of geeks with no respect for other people's property rights. Yet I bet they all be screaming murder if it is their code/work that is being pirated. DRM is not for preventing copying? GMAFB.

Actually, it's copyright holders that have a disrespect for the property of others. Copyright is an affront to the free market, and it directly interferes with the property rights of others. Even worse, anti-circumvention laws mean that I can't legally use the things I own, even in a way that doesn't violate copyright.

HELLO Netflix.....Linux.....it's one of the OS's that you need to support...

Why? Because you use it?

... or maybe because they almost certainly benefit from using Linux to power their servers (or AWS servers)?

In any case, it would be a nice thing for them to do. You, however, can take your confrontational attitude and shove it.

The fact that they use Linux on their servers has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they should make Netflix watchable on Linux, unless you have some ridiculous notion of them somehow "owing" it to Linux. Like everything else, it's a business decision, and the numbers aren't there for Netflix to expend the effort right now.

And you really need to get a better grasp on what's confrontational. If that was enough to upset you, you're never going to last in the big bad internet.

It's kind of surprising to see Netflix putting out an HTML5 player; IME their Silverlight player is by far the most reliable and highest quality (subjectively) of the popular web players (infinitely superior to the YouTube HTML5 and Flash player, eg).

That may be so, but Microsoft is killing Silverlight and the technology gives them no reach beyond Windows and MacOS desktops, so the viability of staying on Silverlight decreases over time.

The third feature is, however, for many people unwelcome. Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) provide an API that allows using encrypted media streams with HTML5's <video> and <audio> tags. EME defines how HTML5 browsers will detect that encrypted streams are being used, and then look up an appropriate Content Decryption Module (CDM) that will verify that the license is being properly respected, and then decrypt the data.

For a RENTAL service, that shouldn't be a problem.

If I am paying for a Netflix subscription, why can't I download a stream, watchit on my iPod on a flight or w/e, and delete it when I am done? I can do the same thing with a Netflix DVD by either ripping it or using the actual DVD in a portable DVD player.

I simply dont understand why the hate against DRM. And the hate against patents as well.

In an ideal world, there should be no DRM, no patents, much like in a ideal world there would be no police /cops, and no thief either.

But realistically speaking, this isn't happening, and if you were the content producer, how would you like others stealing from you?

DRM, and Patents are not Evil, People using this against proper right are evil ( Patents Trolls. )

And to those saying DRM wont work. People can decrypt it and will continue to steal content. And that is like saying padlocks doesn't work. So instead you should just leave your money inside an unprotected box.

Note: And about i cant watch this with this and that etc. Then it is a use case or usage problems. Not a DRM problem.

Actually, this isn't about rental. If it were, then Netflix could be a lot more flexible. It doesn't matter to Netflix what device I play a rental DVD on, so long as it is returned properly since they've got all that first sale doctrine stuff on their side. Streaming is a different beast, and neither Netflix nor its users own or rent anything here. Rather, it is 'licensed.'

That said, I was speaking in a more general sense, and more specifically about the problem that copyright and DRM interfere with the functionality of things we own, such as computers, consoles, smartphones, and the like.

Quote:

Core principles? The internet is a "thing" not a person. It has no principles.

Sometimes words can have different meanings, either in a minor, nuanced way, or a completely different usage depending upon the context in which they are used. Understanding this principle of language is essential to fruitful conversations.

The third feature is, however, for many people unwelcome. Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) provide an API that allows using encrypted media streams with HTML5's <video> and <audio> tags. EME defines how HTML5 browsers will detect that encrypted streams are being used, and then look up an appropriate Content Decryption Module (CDM) that will verify that the license is being properly respected, and then decrypt the data.

For a RENTAL service, that shouldn't be a problem.

If I am paying for a Netflix subscription, why can't I download a stream, watchit on my iPod on a flight or w/e, and delete it when I am done? I can do the same thing with a Netflix DVD by either ripping it or using the actual DVD in a portable DVD player.

1-You have no ownership rights in rental media, regardless of it's form.

I simply dont understand why the hate against DRM. And the hate against patents as well.

In an ideal world, there should be no DRM, no patents, much like in a ideal world there would be no police /cops, and no thief either.

But realistically speaking, this isn't happening, and if you were the content producer, how would you like others stealing from you?

DRM, and Patents are not Evil, People using this against proper right are evil ( Patents Trolls. )

And to those saying DRM wont work. People can decrypt it and will continue to steal content. And that is like saying padlocks doesn't work. So instead you should just leave your money inside an unprotected box.

You are assuming that patents and DRM have useful functions. Not all people hold this to be true.

As for padlocks, the very mater in which they work is quite different. I have a lock on the door to keep people who are not me out of my house, and keep them from doing things in my house that I don't want them to do. The key there is that these people are not in my house and do not have my keys. A DRM system has to let the people it wants to keep out have the keys at some point.

If I am paying for a Netflix subscription, why can't I download a stream, watchit on my iPod on a flight or w/e, and delete it when I am done? I can do the same thing with a Netflix DVD by either ripping it or using the actual DVD in a portable DVD player.

You can't be seriously comparing a downloaded media file and a physical DVD. If you cancel your Netflix account, you have to send the DVD back. If you don't, you'll get charged for it. So if you have some DRM-free media files sitting on your devices and you cancel your account, what is Netflix supposed to do? Take your word that you deleted them?

That's not even taking into account the fact that Netflix has to account for each time a stream is viewed due to licensing agreements.

It's kind of surprising to see Netflix putting out an HTML5 player; IME their Silverlight player is by far the most reliable and highest quality (subjectively) of the popular web players (infinitely superior to the YouTube HTML5 and Flash player, eg).

That may be so, but Microsoft is killing Silverlight and the technology gives them no reach beyond Windows and MacOS desktops, so the viability of staying on Silverlight decreases over time.

Ah...well, that makes sense. That's kind of sad, I've felt (again, subjectively) that the Silverlight implementations were universally superior to Flash. Hopefully with MS's newfound faith in standards HTML5 will reach the same level of performance.

Actually, this isn't about rental. If it were, then Netflix could be a lot more flexible. It doesn't matter to Netflix what device I play a rental DVD on, so long as it is returned properly since they've got all that first sale doctrine stuff on their side. Streaming is a different beast, and neither Netflix nor its users own or rent anything here. Rather, it is 'licensed.'

That said, I was speaking in a more general sense, and more specifically about the problem that copyright and DRM interfere with the functionality of things we own, such as computers, consoles, smartphones, and the like.

Quote:

Netflix reserves the right to terminate your membership hereunder if Netflix, in its sole and absolute discretion, believes that you are in violation of Netflix software restrictions, restrictions against copying movies & TV shows provided to you by us, or other unauthorized copying or use of our proprietary content in violation of the copyrights of Netflix and its licensors. Netflix does not promote, foster or condone the copying of movies &TV shows or any other infringing activity.

knbgnu wrote:

Ostracus wrote:

Core principles? The internet is a "thing" not a person. It has no principles.

Sometimes words can have different meanings, either in a minor, nuanced way, or a completely different usage depending upon the context in which they are used. Understanding this principle of language is essential to fruitful conversations.

The internet isn't a united collective that speaks with one voice, or principle. Your "core" implies a context that doesn't exist regardless of how much rhetoric has crossed under the proverbial bridge.

I don't understand why a few of the big players haven't gotten together and said, "fuck this, we're going to make shit that our customers want, not what the Hollywood jackoffs dictate we can make" and hammer them into the ground (or just buy them out, really)

Hell, forget consumer electronics. Google alone could buy out Hollywood several times over.

Or, hey, they could open up their own studios. They certainly have the money.

When you say that "Google alone could buy out Hollywood several times over," what exactly do you mean by "Hollywood?"

Because if you're implying that Google (or anyone for that matter) has the money to buy out NBCUniversal, Fox, Viacom, Time-Warner, Disney, Sony, etc. -- then I want whatever you're having.

They have assets that not only are beyond Google's cash on hand, but are worth more than Google's total value.

So, this CDM thing, anyone can write one, right? Think about it, abandoning proprietary players, flash or silverlight or whatever, in favor of a decryption plugin opens the door for an open source project to break every verification and encryption scheme developed by media companies, and release a drop-in replacement. I believe the oft-quoted time between someone deciding they want encrypted media on their unsupported device and said encryption being defeated is a week or so? At least, that's what happened to the much vaunted Blu-ray scheme.

I mean, really, what are they expecting to see here? A bunch of geeks passively watching encrypted content flow through networks, operating systems, and browsers controlled by those very geeks? This is still an arms race, and the media companies can't win it. Actually, I'd say they could lose it here, if further web standards remove support for plugins like flash and silverlight. Where's that Admiral Ackbar image macro when you need it?

Which they are totally and absolutely wrong about, because DRM does nothing to stop piracy and just penalizes legitimate paying customers.

It is well past time to make ALL DRM illegal and tell companies "Stop treating your customers like criminals! You are free to go after people who sell counterfeit copies of your stuff, but leave the other 'pirates' alone, they are usually doing nothing more than people with VHS recorders did 20 years ago, sharing with friends!"

Eh, rather than that, give them a choice. Make DRM and copyright mutually exclusive (or, more robust, make copyright an exclusive protection scheme), since the encryption DRM requires to function subverts the intent of copyright.

"Sure, you can encrypt your works, but don't come crying to us when someone breaks your code and starts selling bootlegs on the street."

We'd still have the copyright infringement suits for things like torrents and file sharing, but if that makes it to law, I'd be willing to bet copyright reform did too.

About damn time. I watch a lot of Netflix, and besides games, its the only reason I still run Windows. Now I can start using chrome on Linux to watch the way I want.

EDIT: fuck....didn't see the part where it's only Windows and OSX....HELLO Netflix.....Linux.....it's one of the OS's that you need to support...

Eventually, maybe...but still with ~1% of marketshare, they need to get on Windows and OS X first. Notice that there isn't tons of commercial software on Linux. Why? There's not enough of a market. Don't get me wrong - I use a fair amount of software that came the other direction. That is, out of *nix and into Windows. However, you can't really blame a company (especially companies that mom and grandma know and use) that doesn't put a lot of work into Linux. Until they can get even near OS X numbers, it won't be worth it for most companies.

Now, what I haven't heard talk of yet - what about the 80% of the planet that isn't using Chrome? Where are the plans and roadmaps for IE & FireFox?

Linux desktop users are a vanishingly small percentage of users (like rounding error-small), and probably an even smaller percentage of users willing to pay money for digital content.

Well, you're wrong. Is it small? Sure. It's not rounding error small. It's about where Mac OS was in the 90s and Apple was still considered large enough to pay attention to then, even when the company was in trouble. To dismiss this market is foolish.

Linux desktop users are a vanishingly small percentage of users (like rounding error-small), and probably an even smaller percentage of users willing to pay money for digital content.

Well, you're wrong. Is it small? Sure. It's not rounding error small. It's about where Mac OS was in the 90s and Apple was still considered large enough to pay attention to then, even when the company was in trouble. To dismiss this market is foolish.

Back in the 90s, the Mac held about a 5% marketshare. Linux today has under 3%.

I have to disagree with your assertion that people paid attention to Apple, in as much as software releases. Many's the time a company dismissed the idea of releasing a Mac version because the market just wasn't there. That irritated me to no end, but it happened all the time. Only large companies with either an entrenched market, such as graphic design, or that sold way out of proportion to the Mac's marketshare (MS Office) really supported the Mac.

I'm not saying that a Linux version is a bad idea, just that it can't possibly be a priority over an OS X version, which itself can't be a priority over Windows.

isn't the Modern/Metro Netflix app in Windows 8 using Silverlight? That has 1080P, 5.1 stereo, subtitle support, and the highest available bitrates as well as uses less power. it also will have support for super hd.

No, actually, it provides no protection at all. If you can see and hear the content, it can be duplicated. DRM is nothing but snake oil.

Try as I might, I can't respond to this comment seriously.

I mean, come on, do you really think that "protection" is so starkly black and white?

In some sense it is. All you need is one person in all the world to be willing and able to circumvent DRM on a video and suddenly it's on piratebay for everyone to watch for free. DRM doesn't really stop that.

On the other hand, DRM does dissuade slightly more honest people who might be tempted to keep a video after the rental period. Stopping your average home user (even a tech savy one) from copying streamed video is simple and doesn't require complex DRM but stopping more knowledgeable people from distributing tools that anyone can use to copy video is far harder.